BillsFanNC Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 22 Author Share Posted April 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 22 Share Posted April 22 51 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Meanwhile Biden willfully took, retained and shared classified info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 22 Author Share Posted April 22 (edited) Edited April 22 by BillsFanNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 22 Author Share Posted April 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 22 Author Share Posted April 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 23 Author Share Posted April 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 23 Author Share Posted April 23 To clear up any confusion as to what Special Counsel Jack Smith sought to conceal in classified documents case, this is what Smith told Judge Cannon in Feb 2024 in response to Trump's motion to compel discovery from numerous govt agencies: 1) Defendants are not entitled to discovery of internal government correspondence and memoranda, or to documents that are otherwise privileged. 2) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence of 'Improper Coordination with NARA' and of 'Bias and Investigative Misconduct.' 3) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Trump’s Security Clearance With The Department of Energy. 4) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Evidence Related to Secure Facilities at President Trump’s Residences. 5) The Court Should Deny Defendants’ Requests for Production of Materials Concerning the Search of Mar-a-Lago. AND FINALLY: 6) Defendants’ Request for Unredacted Discovery of Materials Should Be Denied. It's all right here... storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 23 Author Share Posted April 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 23 Author Share Posted April 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 23 Author Share Posted April 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 Judge Smacks Down Letitia James, Rules in Favor of Trump in Fight Over $175 Million Bond A judge on Monday smacked down Marxist tyrant Letitia James and ruled in favor of Trump in a fight over a $175 million bond. On Friday, Letitia James asked a judge to void Trump’s $175 million bond that he posted to appeal the civil fraud case Letitia James argued that California-based Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) is not approved to do business in New York. James also questioned whether KSIC has the funds to back up the $175 million bond Trump previously posted. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/04/breaking-judge-smacks-down-letitia-james-rules-favor/ , 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 Did Letitia James Accidentally Reveal the Real Reason for Her Trump Witch Hunt? MATT MARGOLIS FTA: James's legal team argued that the court should nullify Trump's reduced judgment of $175 million in his non-jury civil fraud trial. Her team raised concerns about the ability of Knight Specialty Insurance, the company behind the substantial bond, to actually pay the bond if necessary. That's a rather curious position since she had asked for a much larger $370 million in damages — it's as if the entire point was to achieve a judgment that would be impossible for Donald Trump to pay. It's as if the entire point of her case was to seize his assets under bogus pretenses and be a hero to the radical left. As you know, in February, leftist Judge Arthur Engoron fined Trump $454 million (including interest) for allegedly fraudulently inflating the value of his assets while seeking a loan to build a project. Trump paid the loan back in full, and the bank he supposedly defrauded testified in his defense. Simply put, there was no crime or victim. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/04/22/letitia-james-challenge-to-trumps-175-million-bond-rejected-by-judge-n4928407 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 23 Share Posted April 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, B-Man said: Did Letitia James Accidentally Reveal the Real Reason for Her Trump Witch Hunt? MATT MARGOLIS FTA: James's legal team argued that the court should nullify Trump's reduced judgment of $175 million in his non-jury civil fraud trial. Her team raised concerns about the ability of Knight Specialty Insurance, the company behind the substantial bond, to actually pay the bond if necessary. That's a rather curious position since she had asked for a much larger $370 million in damages — it's as if the entire point was to achieve a judgment that would be impossible for Donald Trump to pay. It's as if the entire point of her case was to seize his assets under bogus pretenses and be a hero to the radical left. As you know, in February, leftist Judge Arthur Engoron fined Trump $454 million (including interest) for allegedly fraudulently inflating the value of his assets while seeking a loan to build a project. Trump paid the loan back in full, and the bank he supposedly defrauded testified in his defense. Simply put, there was no crime or victim. https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/04/22/letitia-james-challenge-to-trumps-175-million-bond-rejected-by-judge-n4928407 These are all meant to drain him financially. Now on to the appeal... Edited April 23 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 Well golly gee...ya think so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Not for Dem da's with that privilege 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Justice Thomas raised crucial question about legitimacy of special counsel's prosecution of Trump by Thomas Phippen Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Donald Trump. The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all. "Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?" Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer on Thursday during a nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-thomas-raised-crucial-question-about-legitimacy-special-counsels-prosecution-trump . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 8 minutes ago, B-Man said: Justice Thomas raised crucial question about legitimacy of special counsel's prosecution of Trump by Thomas Phippen Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former President Donald Trump. The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all. "Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?" Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer on Thursday during a nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-thomas-raised-crucial-question-about-legitimacy-special-counsels-prosecution-trump . And as Paul Harvey would've said, here's the rest of the story: Sauer replied that Trump's attorneys had not raised that concern "directly" in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump's arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election. The short answer, then, is "no." The question is not properly before the Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts